WFP: Wilson-Pakula repeal ‘a distraction at best’

The Working Families Party says Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s plan to scrap the current Wilson-Pakula system “might be great for candidates with big war-chests, but it is certainly not good for voters,” according to WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor.

Cuomo wants to do away with a system that empowers party leaders to certify that members of another party can run on their line in favor of a petitioning process to win third-party ballots. Progressive voices such as the Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel say it would mean the end of fusion voting.

More from Cantor’s statement:

Under the proposal advanced by the Governor, a well-funded candidate could hijack the Working Families Party ballot line, whether they share the values of our party or not. A quarter-million New Yorkers voted on the Working Families Party line last fall, and they did so because they trust that our endorsements mean something about a candidate’s positions and values. Party leaders are elected to safeguard the integrity of their parties, and they should be allowed to do so.

Every state in America with a fusion voting system protects the rights of minor parties to control which candidates appear on their ballot line. Without that right, any candidate could attempt to hijack the Working Families Party nomination, no matter how opposed they might be to our principles. If they were well-funded enough, they could succeed. We believe in a system of one person, one vote – not one dollar, one vote.

Under the Governor’s proposal, the candidate chooses the party, not the other way around. New York would be the only state in the nation with such a chaotic system.

Of course, some might look askance at the WFP’s worry that its ideological purity and vaunted independence should be in any way compromised by big-money candidates. You can tell a lot about a party’s integrity when its statewide ballot line hangs in the balance, which in New York happens in every gubernatorial cycle.

For an example of what New York would lose if the WFP fell in thrall to monied pols, let’s look back on the collection of wild-haired academics, radical thinkers and uncompromising pathbreakers the party has nominated as its gubernatorial candidates in the past few election cycles. Consider:

In 2010, the WFP endorsed an underfunded and little-known Democratic candidate named Andrew Cuomo, who had to scrape by spending only $28 million over the course of the election. The Daily Kos pointed out a few problems with the party’s decision.

In 2006, the party endorsed a virtually unheard-of pair of Democratic bolsheviks called Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson.

In 2002, the WFP spat in the face of convention and backed Democratic former Comptroller Carl McCall and Dennis Mehiel, who had as much success against Gov. George Pataki as the party’s 1998 candidates, Democrats Peter Vallone and Sandra Frankel. Did the WFP endorse Democrat Mario Cuomo in 1994? Hell no — but then again, the party didn’t exist back then.

This stands in contrast to the state Green Party, which in 2010 took the easy way out by nominating Howie Hawkins, whose massive name recognition was paired with his ability to draw on the vast pools of money available to the average community organizer from Syracuse. Sellouts!

Somehow, the Greens’ cynical gamble paid off when Hawkins received more than 50,000 votes to put the party on the statewide ballot.

Here’s the WFP’s full statement:

The Governor’s proposal to repeal the Wilson-Pakula law would weaken minor parties like the Working Families Party and diminish the voices of those without power, money and lobbyists. This is a bad idea at any time, but especially so now. The public is rightly cynical about the health of our democracy; they believe that the political game is rigged. The wealthy and well-connected get special access and special consideration from public officials. The mission of the Working Families Party is to ensure that our elected officials are accountable to working families and not powerful corporate interests. The 99%, not the 1%.

This proposal would do nothing to deal with corruption, nor would it reverse the public’s cynicism. It’s a distraction at best. Meanwhile, there are several important reforms that merit passage: public financing of elections is one, and expanding the jurisdiction of the Attorney General to investigate corruption is another. The Governor has supported both ideas in the past, and we call on him to take action on these genuine reforms immediately.

Under the proposal advanced by the Governor, a well-funded candidate could hijack the Working Families Party ballot line, whether they share the values of our party or not. A quarter-million New Yorkers voted on the Working Families Party line last fall, and they did so because they trust that our endorsements mean something about a candidate’s positions and values. Party leaders are elected to safeguard the integrity of their parties, and they should be allowed to do so.

Every state in America with a fusion voting system protects the rights of minor parties to control which candidates appear on their ballot line. Without that right, any candidate could attempt to hijack the Working Families Party nomination, no matter how opposed they might be to our principles. If they were well-funded enough, they could succeed. We believe in a system of one person, one vote – not one dollar, one vote.

Under the Governor’s proposal, the candidate chooses the party, not the other way around. New York would be the only state in the nation with such a chaotic system. This might be great for candidates with big war-chests, but it is certainly not good for voters.

The recent corruption scandals stem from the corrupting influence of money in politics. The proposal to eliminate Wilson-Pakula process should be withdrawn, and we should focus on real reform: comprehensive campaign finance reform, with a system of public financing of elections at the core.